Debates of May 4th, 2017

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for mentioning the group in Edmonton. There is lots of great work going on in my fair city.

The member spoke about Malala. Of course, all of us here admire the work of Malala. However, I have to say that there was one thing on the day of making Malala a citizen of Canada that did not happen that disappointed me.

The children of Canada mounted a huge campaign called Shannen's Dream on behalf of Shannen Koostachin, who wanted to have a school in her community. Chelsea-Jane Edwards has continued that campaign. I tweeted her that day saying that I wished she could be here.

I am deeply disappointed, first of all, that the budget and the bill do not mention the need to finally deliver the dollars the Human Rights Commission said the government needs to to provide equal access to services for aboriginal children. The government speaks of equality for women and speaks of caring for children, but when the rubber hits the road, they forget about those out there in the community who are actually doing the hard work to make sure that their communities have those equal opportunities.

I wonder if the member could speak to what happened to the additional measures to make sure that indigenous children are getting equal access to comparable services and education.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her hard work and her advocacy on behalf of various groups across Canada. It is work I am committed to as well.

I began my presentation, with what I would call a clumsy French translation, acknowledging that we are on traditional territory, because like our Prime Minister, I believe that there is no relationship more important to us as a country than the relationship with the indigenous peoples of this land.

As an immigrant to this land, I recognize that I have been afforded opportunities that have brought me to this place but that there are many indigenous peoples who do not benefit yet from those same opportunities. We need to change that.

In budget 2016, we invested over $8 billion to begin the hard work of reconciliation through investments in infrastructure, education, and cultural renewal. Budget 2017 would build on that. There is an additional investment of $3.4 billion over the next five years to improve outcomes for the first peoples of this land. This, I believe, is one of the most important priorities every single member of this House has. It is a sacred obligation that I know we will all work hard to address.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, Taxation; and the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Indigenous Affairs.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join the debate. I want to offer a much more light-hearted critique following the heavy substance we had, provided by the many members of the Conservative caucus especially.

I always start with a Yiddish proverb. I have one of course. The heaviest thing in the world is an empty pocket, and it very much applies to this budget. It will empty the pockets of most Canadians. The nickel and diming in the budget, whether it is higher taxes on Uber and ride-sharing services like Lyft, or higher taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, and transit passes, Canadians will see their pockets far emptier than they have ever been before and their families will feel it far heavier than they ever have.

There has been a lot of criticism in the media. Journalists, columnists, and stakeholder groups have, in a sustained way, criticized the budget for its lack of vision and ideas. There is actually a lack of new ideas. There is nothing new in the budget from the fall economic statement. We simply have a return to more 1970s public budgeting methods, which is extremely high deficits, structural deficits, a lot of new debt, and a lot of program spending with very questionable results on the back end. In fact, in the budget the term “innovation” appears 212 times, “small business” appears six times. The one thing missed in the budget is that the government could have spent money on the purchase of a new thesaurus.

In French, that would be a “Larousse” and a “Bescherelle”.

The 2016 census was released on Tuesday by Statistics Canada. On the population and demographics numbers, its states that we have more seniors than children in Canada now. It says that the working age population, 15 to 64, has declined to 66.5%; over 65 is now 16.9% of the population; and under the age 15 is 16.6%. We have more seniors today than we have ever had before and now it is inverted. We are now a country of grandparents, not children. That was a favourite saying of former premier of Alberta, Ed Stelmach. He used to say that we were quickly coming to the point where we would have more grandparents than young children, and that is a fundamental change to the country and to the way the government should be delivering on programs.

All we see in the budget is simply runaway spending. Some spending is going to seniors, but there is no attempt even to try to constrain some of the spending, redirect it, and make it easier for seniors to access those services. I have a lot of seniors in my riding who are having a very difficult time accessing GIS, OAS, and Service Canada. It is not that they are not eligible for it, but it is the service delivery component that they find very difficult to access. Not all of them are up on the latest app. Not all of them are using the latest Apple device. They are simply having difficulty accessing basic services.

On program spending, by 2021 and 2022, seniors' benefits will account for $63.7 billion. That is much more than double what we will be spending on children's benefit programs by then. This trend will continue, and this budget has too few superclusters of ideas to address the problem of the aging demographics.

The nickel and diming budget, as I like to call it in my riding, includes, as I said, hikes on alcohol, cigarettes, public transit passes, ride-hailing services, and a lot more. It keeps going, especially on businesses. A lot of promises were made by the Liberals during the election, but they have not kept them, like the reduction to the small business tax, which has a material impact on how people plan their business. An analysis done by the CBC found this budget contained only $1.3 billion of any new spending. In a $300 billion operation, which is the Government of Canada, why do we need this budget when it is just a rehash of the fall economic statement? It is generally a rehash with a lot more buzzwords being used, trying to promote the government in a vain attempt to find those extra votes.

In Calgary, the Minister of Finance delivered a speech after the budget. I talked to the media afterward. It was a stock speech. It could have been delivered in any city, in any county, anywhere in Canada. It would have been exactly the same, and it fell flat with the Calgary business community. There was very little interest. It was a quiet crowd and the people had very little to say afterward. I asked the minister the very simple question then about when the budget would balance itself. Obviously, I did not get an answer, because there is no answer. There is no answer in the budget either. The only answer we find is in Department of Finance documents that were put out, which state that we will have to wait until after 2050 to ever see a balanced budget again. The return to a balanced budget is fictional.

When I commented on budget 2016 last year, I thought the government should perhaps put that budget up for the Scotiabank Giller Prize as a work of fiction. Budget 2017 is a redux, a rehash, a lot more fiction, but there is a lot more science fiction in this one than there ever was before.

The Liberals are budgeting from the heart out, as a previous member said. It is vanilla flavoured, as Macleans has called it.

Particularly worrying for me are changes to the tax laws that govern the exploration of new wells. Companies will see their tax deductions reduced between 2019 and 2022. In Calgary, Edmonton, and regions in Alberta, this is going to extract $145 million out of companies when they are hurting the most right now and trying to keep employees on the payroll. The Liberals are giving Alberta $30 million of its own tax money to basically go toward orphan well cleanup and taking away $145 million that would have gone toward the exploration of new wells.

The government's logic is that it will spend $30 million to clean up orphan wells and then discourage the exploration of new wells by taking $145 million from businesses. That is the logic at a time when Alberta is really hurting? It is no wonder the members for Calgary Heritage and Calgary Midnapore were elected with over 75% support in their ridings. With that type of logic, of course we will see those types of numbers. There are 82,000 inactive oil and gas wells, a lot of which could be reclaimed, but not for $30 million. It is no surprise this budget has fallen flat with Canadians, not just pundits, columnists, or politicians.

In a poll referenced by The Globe and Mail by Bill Curry, with the headline “'Canadians were not impressed' by federal budget: survey”, only 5% of Canadians said they had a positive view of this budget. That is interesting. As I mentioned before, the earliest we will see a balanced budget will probably be in 2055 or 2056. These are Department of Finance numbers, not my numbers in any way. This is why there is so little confidence in the government and so little support for this budget. It is a rehash. It is fiction. I do not believe a lot of this money will ever get spent. The Liberals make announcements over years that far exceed the mandate of the government, expecting people to be wowed by numbers in the billions. There is a lot of money in the budget supposedly for science. This year it is science fiction, like I said.

I want to mention the Nebula Award. It is May 4, so “May the 4th be with you”. I want to mention two science fiction prizes and I want to compare the budget to them. I really think the government has a chance. There are two government documents that could be submitted for a prize. They are the budget speech and the budget itself. The Nebula Award is for a short story of less than 7,500 words. That is the budget speech. There is the option of a novelette, a novella, or a novel. The government could submit chapter five that the minister just mentioned for a novella.

The eligibility requirements, though, might prove difficult. However, perhaps it could negotiate with President Trump and have it included in NAFTA so Canadians could also apply for the Nebula Award. It says, “All works first published in English, in the United States, during the calendar year”, which is looking pretty good right now, “in the genres of science fiction, fantasy, or a related fiction genre are eligible for the Nebula Awards in their respective categories.” There is good news. If it is published online, like this document is, it is eligible as well.

I will also mention the 2017 Hugo Awards that will be presented at Worldcon 75 in Helsinki, Finland, on August 11. There is still time to apply for the best novel, best novella, best novelette. One of the works that is up for the award would be competitive. It is called Ninefox Gambit by Yoon Ha Lee. The best novella is The Dream-Quest. This entire budget is a dream quest for a balanced budget to help the middle class perhaps or to take more kids out of poverty, none of which will be achieved.

This is 1970s public budgeting. It failed then and it will fail today. It will fail in 10 years and it will fail the next generation. The next generation will be kids like my kids, who are looking at more debt, programs that do not work, and an entire government that is stuck in the 1960s and 1970s.

Without taking too much time, I will mention one more work because it applies to what the minister was talking about, the best related work, The Geek Feminist Revolution, written by Kameron Hurley and published by Tor Books, a far better read than chapter 5.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to talk fiction, the absurdity of the speech would really do Douglas Adams proud.

The real fiction is that that Conservatives are good fiscal managers. If we want to look for a time that Conservatives brought us from a deficit to a surplus, we would have to go back to the late 19th century. In the early 20th century, they managed to balance a budget. It was inherited from a Liberal government, and it was in full deficit by 1913, ahead of the First World War. Stephen Harper managed to balance a budget inherited from good Liberal fiscal management. There is one budget they claim to have balanced, and it is a spurious argument, and they ended up selling a whole lot of house to pay off the mortgage.

On what basis do the Conservatives believe they have any capacity in fiscal management?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the member has a love for Yiddish proverbs like I do, which is amazing. We spent some time in the House procedures committee and he had to survive eight hours straight of my speech on a lot of various subjects that were pertinent to the discussion then.

However, to answer his question, it is quite simple. The Department of Finance disagrees with him. The parliamentary budget officer disagrees with him. Canadians disagree with him. It is all right there in the numbers. The Conservatives are good stewards. Typically, we are elected. When things are going really badly, we clean up the books, we lower taxes, we fix government programs, and sometimes we are defeated. Then the Liberals get back in, raise spending, raise the deficits, ramp up the debt and, typically, Canadians then go back to the Conservatives to fix it again.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for my colleague, people have more than two options at the polls. The fact is that they added $150 billion to the national debt during their time in power, and it was not the end of the world.

Anyway, my question is about the government's choices. By passing an NDP motion, the Liberals agreed to put limits on stock options for CEOs, but that is nowhere in the budget. It could have kept that promise in Bill C-44, the budget implementation bill. It could have followed through on the commitment it made when it passed our motion on March 8. Unfortunately, there was no mention of it in the budget tabled on March 22. Now Bill C-44 makes no mention of that commitment either.

What the Liberals did do was get rid of the public transit tax credit. People in our ridings use that tax credit. People come to see me, and they tell me that they use it. Sometimes it is the only tax credit they can use because they are not in a position to make charitable or political donations. They do not have access to other tax credits; this is one of the few they can use. Now the government is taking their tax credit away. It just so happens to be leaving generous tax credits for CEOs in place.

What does the member think of the Liberal government's policy choices?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sherbrooke for his question.

Like me, he is angry that the government listens to neither New Democrats nor Conservatives when we have ideas that can help people in our ridings and people who really need help. I agree with him. We should not be helping big corporations and CEOs; we should be helping small businesses. During the election campaign, the government promised to cut small business taxes. We know that 98% of them create wealth and create most of our jobs. The Liberals have done nothing.

The government is looking at this as if it were another budget. It could have done the job properly. It could have kept its promises and made that part of the government's agenda. That is not what it did, but should we really be surprised? It does not seem to bother them. The Liberals are not here for Canadians. They are here to make sure they will stay in power for decades if possible. They take these programs, like the infrastructure program, and they do nothing with them.

In my riding, Calgary Shepard, there is a rail project that I would like to see built, but it requires federal money. We have not seen any yet. A lot of people in my riding are interested in this project, but they will never get to see this train run unless the government finally decides to convince the province to get the project started.

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak to budget 2017, and how it will help our families, our infrastructure, our children, and our seniors.

I am optimistic about the budget. It is a good budget, but there is an aspect of this year's budget that is both unique and historic. Our government has been called Canada's first feminist government, and we are very proud of that distinction. More important, we are determined to live up to it, so that those words become the real and tangible efforts that help all women succeed.

The budget 2017 gender statement represents the government's first comprehensive effort at reporting on gender-based analyses of budgetary measures. Gender-based analysis identifies the ways in which public policies affect women and men differently. Budget 2017 identified more than 60 measures as having differential gender impacts, but we can do more.

We have a real opportunity to show how we considered and prioritized outcomes for women. In this bill, Canadians will find the kinds of things they should expect in a federal budget implementation act: a focus on skills and innovation, infrastructure, and tax fairness, to name a few, examples of things that will help middle-class Canadians succeed. These measures were developed with gender equality in mind. Empowering women to become economic drivers equal to that of men can have a real and positive effect for our economy.

Recent history has shown that as women have become more educated and more established in the workforce, Canada' s economy and the incomes of both men and women have grown. Canadian women are among the most educated in the world, something we should be so proud of, and make up 47% of the labour force, yet women are still paid less than men in exactly the same positions. In this area, Canada lags behind similar countries.

Barriers are particularly evident among younger women with at least one child. They are still far more likely than men to sacrifice careers to perform unpaid work at home. As policy-makers, it is our obligation to consider and to take action to address the inherent bias that persists in these areas, not simply because it makes economic sense, but because it is the right thing to do.

Well before budget 2017, our government started taking action on gender-based challenges. We rolled out the Canada child benefit to better support families and lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. We increased the guaranteed income supplement top-up benefit to boost support for the most vulnerable single seniors who are disproportionately women. I would now like to discuss a few measures in the bill.

Through this bill, our government is taking steps to help improve the current caregiver credit system that applies to Canadians who are caring for their loved ones. Budget 2017 simplifies the existing system by replacing the caregiver credit, the infirm dependant credit, and the family caregiver tax credit with a single new credit, the Canada caregiver credit. This new non-refundable credit will provide better support to those who need it most. It will apply to caregivers, whether or not they live with their family member, and it will help families with caregiving responsibilities.

Budget 2017 assessed proposed tax measures, including the Canada caregiver credit, to determine their gendered impacts. By applying a gendered !ens, budget 2017 will promote the fair and consistent treatment of women and men under the tax system. Statistics Canada estimates that more women than men are caregivers. However, we also know that a slightly higher proportion of men claim the caregiver tax credits.

Our government is also committed to meeting Canadians' demand for health care services. With the passage of the bill, the government will provide funding to provinces and territories for home care and mental health services in 2017-18 as an immediate down payment to provinces and territories that have accepted the federal offer of $11 billion over 10 years.

Clearly, the demand for home care services is growing with an aging population. Today, approximately 15% of hospital beds are still occupied by patients who could and would prefer to receive their care at home, or who would be better off in a community-based setting.

What is more, a majority of those Canadians who have taken on the responsibility to care for their loved ones are still in the workforce. They are sandwiched. They are men and women who are likely to spend a significant amount of time in caregiving activities. The time to support them is now.

Women also account for nearly two-thirds of all home care clients. Paid care is mostly provided by female health care providers. The targeted health care investments in this bill would be used to train additional front-line home care workers, and increase employment opportunities for women.

When it comes to mental health, scientific research has made great strides to improve our understanding of it and its prevalence. Unfortunately, we know that an overwhelming number of Canadians will be affected directly or indirectly by mental illness at some point in their lives.

Furthermore, family violence is a key factor for poor mental health, suicide, and substance abuse. Many organizations have noted that victims of family violence are predominantly women.

By providing the stable, predictable, and long-term funding needed to shorten those wait times for mental health services, outcomes for many groups, including women at risk, can be improved.

There are other examples of measures from this budget that stand to benefit women. This bill would allow parents to choose to receive employment insurance parental benefits over an extended period of up to 18 months at a lower benefit rate of 33% of average weekly earnings. The existing benefit rate that we have now of 55% over a period of 12 months would continue to be available. This measure recognizes that every Canadian family is different, with different needs when it comes to how a family manages work and family responsibilities. Working parents need more flexibility to navigate the challenges that come with a growing family.

In conclusion, we know this is just a start and that making progress on these issues will demand both continued effort and a clear sense of what we need to accomplish. We must change the way that we create policies to level the playing field so that everyone has a real chance to succeed.

The bill is the first that seeks to implement budget measures that were developed under a lens of gender-based analysis. More work is still to come. I encourage my fellow members to support this bill and the progress that it represents. We need all Canadians to be at their best. We cannot allow anybody to fall behind. We are in a very competitive global world. We need everybody doing their best, and being provided with the opportunities to succeed.

By building that ladder, by providing those rungs so that our women and men can succeed in the workforce, in their families, in the community, that will build a better Canada for all of us.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his presentation.

However, I am always surprised at how he presents things. I get the impression that he is wearing rose coloured glasses when he brags about being part of a feminist government.

The government is saying pretty much the same thing about indigenous issues. It says it made a record investment, but that investment will likely not be made until sometime after 2020, even though the needs of indigenous peoples are urgent and pressing right now. They were urgent and pressing yesterday.

The hon. member says that this budget leaves no one behind. I would like him to address the fact that in every speech today, not one person has talked about indigenous issues or the investments in indigenous issues, which are quite paltry in my opinion.

Why talk about what is going to happen in 2020 or 2021 when the indigenous communities have pressing needs today?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right regarding how pressing these issues are, such as being able to provide safe water on reserve. For many years we heard about many water advisories. Those have come down quite a bit. That has been through significant investments in infrastructure, investments in education, $8 billion of investment. Reconciliation is at the forefront of this government's agenda.

There is much more work to do, but we are diligently working at this. We are working with the entire House. I believe we are all in this together. We are all on the same page. Indigenous people are our fastest growing population. When I say that we need everybody at their best, I do mean everybody needs to be at their best. That is why those investments with indigenous people are so vital and so important.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in honour of my colleague, the member for Calgary Shepard, I want to say a Yiddish proverb, that words should be weighted and not counted. I thought of that when I listened to the member's speech.

I asked a question previously about the government committing $120 million for charging stations for Teslas and then overlooking many other needed items. The member went on and on about it being a feminist budget. I noticed that a new national strategy to address gender-based violence is getting 20% less money from the government than it is providing for Tesla charging stations. How does the member reconcile that?

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member should look back a number of years to when there was an egregious amount of spending on advertising by the former government. There was a carpet bombing of ads during the NHL playoffs and during the Super Bowl. They were sandwiched with political ads. There was $750 million spent on partisan advertising on television. What I heard from my constituents was why the former government was wasting so much money on that advertising. The member should go back and look at what the Conservative government did when it was in power and that egregious spending.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what a privilege it is to stand in this place representing the residents of Winnipeg North.

I thought I would do something a bit different and give a bit of an overview.

Over the last 18 months since we have had a new Prime Minister and a new government, a great deal has been accomplished. I am often asked in my community what some of the real, tangible things are that the government has done that have made a difference, and how I could best explain them. A number of things come to mind, things that have really had a profound positive impact on the constituents I represent and ultimately on all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

I think of things such as the Canada child benefit program, a program that was greatly enhanced by this government. We ultimately saw tens of thousands of children lifted out of poverty, many of whom called Winnipeg North their home.

I think in terms of the increase to the guaranteed income supplement. Some of the very poorest seniors in Canada were given significant increases in the guaranteed income supplement, which lifted thousands of seniors out of poverty, many of whom are residents of Winnipeg North.

I think of the CPP agreement. Our national government worked with the provinces and territories and came up with an agreement with respect to the CPP. It is not just about today; it is also about tomorrow. Parties of all stripes came to an agreement. We saw an increase for retirement into the future, something the previous government could not accomplish, something I am proud of, because this will help my constituents, who will have that much more money when it comes time for them to retire.

When I talk about retirement, I have to make mention of the reversal of the Harper decision. Members may recall that former prime minister Stephen Harper increased the age for individuals to qualify for OAS from 65 years to 67. Our government reduced the age back down to 65. This particular policy decision enabled hundreds of my constituents and thousands of Canadians across Canada to benefit.

There are many things, direct and indirect, that I could talk about.

I could talk about students. Our government almost doubled the student summer employment program. Hundreds of youth are given the opportunity to get work experience during their summer break, and Many of those jobs are in my riding of Winnipeg North. There are so many things that this government has been very successful in doing at the local level.

Then I could talk about the bigger picture. The budget implementation bill that we are debating today is a continuation of what this government started when it first took office. The Prime Minister made it very clear: Canada's middle class and those who aspire to be a part of it are the government's first priority, and the initiatives that have been taken by our government support that primary objective. For example, we saw a special tax increase on Canada's 1% wealthiest. We saw a decrease in tax for Canada's middle class, and millions of Canadian families in every region of our country benefited. There is so much more in terms of just addressing the middle-class issue.

This budget is also about investing in infrastructure. Record high amounts of money are being invested in Canada's infrastructure. Every region of our country will benefit, including the residents of Winnipeg North, where these dollars will ultimately help to improve their quality of life. I am speaking of infrastructure such as streets, capital infrastructure, facilities dealing with public transit, green projects, because we believe we need to invest in Canada. Infrastructure is absolutely critical in terms of our further development as a country.

We have also seen the government take a very proactive approach on issues that we know are very important and top of mind to constituents. One of those is the price on carbon pollution. We hear a lot of criticism from the Conservative Party on that, but when we talk to young people in no matter what region in the country, we find that the Prime Minister has it right. In fact it is beyond young people, but I am always encouraged by how young people get engaged on this particular issue.

When we went to Paris, we made some commitments. Governments around the world made commitments. Our Prime Minister and our Minister of Environment took those commitments and turned them into something tangible and real. This is an issue on which working with the provinces has really made a difference.

It seems the only party in Canada that is opposed to this measure, with the exception of Brad Wall, is the local Conservative Party here in the House. That demonstrates just how out of touch the Conservative Party is with Canadians. One would have thought they would have learned something from the past election. They need to start listening to what people have to say.

The Prime Minister often talks about how important it is that as members of Parliament we represent the interests of our constituents here in Ottawa, as opposed to what it used to be, when MPs would often be representing Ottawa in their constituencies. It is absolutely essential that we take talk with our constituents, get the understanding of our communities, and bring that to Ottawa to help formulate policies that would really make a difference.

And it is starting to pay off. We have some very encouraging trends that give us reason to be optimistic. We will continue to move forward because of the many initiatives our government has brought in and put in place in a relatively short time span.

I heard some members across the way say they were concerned about tourism, that tourism numbers are down. It is not true. In fact, we have record numbers of tourists coming to our country. I believe it was in excess of 30 million last year, which was a substantial increase. It is almost a double-digit increase, a 9% to 10% increase, from the previous year. When those sorts of things happen, it means there are going to be more jobs in the hospitality industry.

Jobs are important. We recognize that as a government. That is why in the budget we spend a lot of time talking about not only protecting the jobs of today but looking at ways we can ensure that there will be jobs for tomorrow.

We have a government that is very progressive in its thinking and is proactive in dealing with trade agreements. We were able to get CETA across the goal line. We talked about the trade agreement with Ukraine and the negotiations that have benefited our canola farmers in the Prairies. There are ample examples of our government's approach having a significant positive impact on our economy.

I bring it back to what we have talked about a great deal for the last two years and more, even before we were in government. The Prime Minister and our government are focused on Canada's middle class and those who are aspiring to be a part of it. We are working hard every day to ensure that the policies that continue to evolve from the many different ministries do what they can to reinforce the importance of working hard, providing hope, and ultimately believing that if we have a healthier middle class, we will have a healthier economy. I understand the benefits of the economy and I believe that in time, Canadians will continue to support the types of government initiatives that we have witnessed over the last 18 months.

I would encourage all members of this House to get behind this legislation. It is a budget implementation bill. It is a good budget. It is a continuation from the first budget we introduced, and Canadians will benefit. If in fact opposition members listen to what Canadians have to say, I suspect they will be inclined to vote for this budget.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on child poverty rates, the member mentioned at the beginning of his statement that in 1994, under a previous Liberal government, 15.5% of persons under 18 were low income. By the time that previous government left office, it was 15.7%, so the previous Liberal government did not really do anything, it failed.

In 2006, when a Conservative government took over, the child poverty rate was 16.3%. By the time the Conservatives left office, it was 14.7%. Actually, the rate was down even in absolute numbers. I have the sheet going back to 1994, two government cycles, and for the first time the number was lower than one million Canadians under the poverty line. Is the member convinced that his government is on the right track? The previous Liberal government failed miserably at this. It was the right policies of the previous Harper Conservative government that actually got it done. Why are the Liberals introducing more policies that will fail again?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would challenge the member across the way to think about what I actually said. We had a substantial increase in the Canada child benefit program that lifted tens of thousands of children out of poverty. The member across the way, with his Conservative colleagues, voted against that.

He might want to talk about the past; I am talking about what, in the last two years, this government has been able to accomplish. What we know for a fact is that there are fewer children in poverty today because of this government and the policies that we have brought in, policies that the member across the way and the Conservative Party specifically voted against. The Conservatives need to rethink whether they want to fight poverty, because if they want to fight poverty, the best thing they can do is vote for this budget.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North tried to give us a laundry list of what the government has accomplished over the past year and a half. In that vein, how many bills has his government presented to this House, and how does that number compare to the average that new governments would have presented to Parliament in their first year and a half after being elected?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is being a little mischievous with that particular question. I would let the member across the way know that there are many ways in which a government can deliver on the promises that it makes to Canadians during the election.

I think Canadians want to see, first and foremost, issues within the budget that are actually going to deliver and are going to make a difference. I would suggest that within these last two budgets, we had the most progressive government in providing good, sound policies that are taking people out of poverty, that have clearly demonstrated the ability to generate jobs for Canadians, and that are giving more hope. We have seen tourism numbers going up. We have seen job numbers trending up. Once again there is opportunity for Canada to continue to grow and prosper into the future.

I believe that if we were to canvass Canadians, we would hear that the most important issue for them is to have some faith that they have a government that is listening to what Canadians are saying. For the first time we have a Prime Minister who is truly listening, accountable, transparent, and making a difference in the everyday lives of all Canadians.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad there was mention of tourism, because we heard some statements from across the way saying that measures we have taken would negatively impact on tourism. I would argue that this may be the greatest year in the history of Canada for tourism in view of not only the tax measures we have taken but also of the image that Canada has created for itself through our Prime Minister and through other things. With the American dollar exchange rate and Come From Away with seven Tony Awards nominations, I think people are going to be wanting to come to Canada. Would my friend comment on the positive effects that tourism would see thanks to our measures?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is so correct. More than 30 million people have come to Canada. That kind of number is unprecedented. Even Stephen Harper could never achieve that. We have done that within two years. I think the opportunity to continue to see some positive trends is there. It is very real. Much of the information that we hear from across the way is not necessarily full and complete.

I can assure members that we are on the right track. That is one of the reasons why I would challenge them to actually recognize it and vote with the government for a budget that is going to make a difference here in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we go to resuming debate, I will let the hon. member for Edmonton West know that there is somewhat less than five minutes remaining in the time for government orders this afternoon. I will have to interrupt him partway through his usual 10 minutes of remarks, but he will have the remaining time when the House next gets back to business on the question.

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my time will be short, so maybe I will make up for it by yelling like our friend across the way, the member for Winnipeg North.

I would like to rise to speak to Bill C-44, budget 2017, otherwise known as the line of credit bill. Before I get to my reactions to the bill, I want to share with the House someone else's reaction to the bill.

After the budget came out, I was at home, on a Saturday, because I am here on a Friday, and I was grousing about this huge deficit and debt that the government is adding for future Canadians to pay. I was grousing to my wife about the extra $100 billion. My oldest son—who is in Grade 12, a strong libertarian, a strong Conservative, who is entering the real world next year—was in the room, playing on his computer. Normally, we could set a bomb off and it would not distract him from his video game, but he heard “$100 billion”, looked over at me, and yelled, “Dad, what the heck?”—actually, it was not “heck”; it was a different word, but members get the idea. He said, “Thanks for sticking us with the bill”.

That is what we are doing here. We are sticking future generations with the bill for the present government's inability to act responsibly today. There is a disconnect between the government's perception of its budget and reality. From its spin, we would never realize what a train wreck its financial plan is. The government is raising taxes, taking away family tax credits, shamelessly adding a tax on a tax by adding GST to the tune of about $200 million to the carbon tax in Alberta and British Columbia, and even with all these added taxes, it is still saddling us with over $100 billion in debt over the next four years.

What do we get for selling out our children and our grandchildren? We get 1.7% projected growth. There is no need to check Hansard or the translation. Members heard me correctly. I said 1.7% growth.

I am disappointed in the unsustainably high deficits, the tax increases, the continuous movement of the financial goal posts just to cynically meet the Liberals' needs on a given day and the stunning lack of new ideas from the government.

The government has not even been around for two years. This is only its second budget, and we are already hearing about how lacklustre it is and how disappointing it is that the government is unable to offer anything new. Do not take my word for it. Here are some quotes from our friends in the media.

Stephen Gordon, in the National Post, wrote, “With this federal budget, the Liberals have let the middle class down, again”.

If Mr. Gordon is watching on CPAC, I will tell him that he forgot to mention that they are also letting down those working to join the middle class.

Andrew Coyne said, “No money, no ideas, but a wealth of bafflegab and buzzwords from the Liberals”.

Paul Wells, of the Toronto Star, says, “It's a mystery how the Liberals are encouraging innovation and helping the middle class.... It would be nice if [the] budget offered real gains because so far the [Prime Minister's] government's handling of both issues is pretty much a mess.”

To put this into perspective, there are more recorded examples of Pravda criticizing the Soviet government than there are of the Toronto Star criticizing the Liberals.

The media are correct. The budget does not offer anything new or meaningful to help Canadians get a job, save for the future, or grow the economy. Instead, the budget spends more, borrows more, delivers on very little, and provides no hope for those in the middle class and those working to join it.

The government likes to brag about how often it consults Canadians. I would love to meet those who rely on the public transit tax credit in order to afford the bus passes, who actually told the finance minister to go ahead and end this tax credit. I would love to meet the young Canadians who use Uber because it is an affordable alternative to a car, who told the finance minister to go ahead and tax this service. I would love to meet the small business owners who enthusiastically support the government's broken promise to lower the small business tax. I would absolutely love to meet the people who said yes to higher oil and gas exploration taxes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member will have six minutes when debate continues on this matter.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-311, An Act to amend the Holidays Act (Remembrance Day), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Holidays Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.